The Elephant in the Room, James McDonald, and the Public Discourse

I concur wholeheartedly with Tim Keller and D.A. Carson’s decision and rationale behind the dangerous public affair of the ER2. Keller and Carson observe:

There is always a place for a Paul to reason with pagan philosophers in the Areopagus,” the statement said. “That is a bit different from trying to reform another’s theology in a public setting where the trappings and attitudes largely suggest everyone is already on the same side.”

When you set things in the context of “conversation” that is  very much public, the expectations entail a form of conciliatory agenda, even when the reconciliation may not be present. A conversation with Driscoll, Mcdonald, and T.D. Jakes on the particulars of Jakes’ trinitarian evolution would seem profitable in private. But as Carson and Keller observe, these public settings entail a form of “we truly agree on this” attitude. What I would suggest is a private meeting where these issues can be discussed without the pressure of the lights, cameras, and millions of viewers. Perhaps once participants of the ER observe, analyze, and confirm Jakes’ transition as authentic, and robustly creedal, then, and only then, should we give him a public opportunity to tell the world he has abandoned oneness theology, and truly embraced the Trinitarianism of Nicea.

Share Button

One thought on “The Elephant in the Room, James McDonald, and the Public Discourse”

Comments are closed.